Backing from the Obama administration to add the fish to Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is the second major announcement in as many weeks. On 22 February the European Commission also recommended that the 27 EU member states offer their support for the ban under the condition that an implementation delay suggested by France be observed.

For years, conservationists have argued that the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the regulatory body responsible for bluefin tuna stocks, is incapable of adequately managing the industry. And the recent move by the US shows that the Obama administration now agrees.

“The regulatory mechanisms that have been relied upon have failed to do the job,” said Tom Strickland, the Interior Department’s assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks. “We are literally at a moment where if we don’t get this right, we could see this very, very special species really at risk for survival.”

If CITES member states vote to add bluefin tuna to Appendix I at the organisation’s 13-25 March Conference of the Parties (COP 15), it would effectively ban all international trade in the fish between the 175 CITES member countries. Some 80-90 per cent of the global bluefin tuna catch is exported to Japan, where it sold as a premium dish in restaurants.

EU position still unclear

With more than 50 per cent of the total bluefin catch quota, European countries along the Mediterranean play a major role in the industry. France surprised many by agreeing to support the ban, but Paris’ condition that an 18 month delay in implementation has frustrated environmental groups (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 5 February 2010, http://ictsd.org/i/news/biores/69843/).

Most European countries now support the move, with the notable exceptions of maritime countries Greece, Malta, and Spain. But the European Commission ratcheted up pressure on the outstanding member states by recommending that all EU countries back the CITES Appendix I addition.

“The Commission is deeply concerned that overfishing of Atlantic bluefin tuna driven largely by international trade is seriously depleting stocks of the species,” reads a 22 February press release. “The Commission considers, on the basis of the most recent scientific data available, that Atlantic bluefin tuna should be included in Appendix I of CITES.”

But despite the positive momentum provided by the EC position, critics say the Commission’s acceptance of France’s 18 month delay is not in line with their stated concern. “If the EU is serious about respecting scientific advice - as it claims - it should support an immediate closure of the bluefin tuna fishery as well as a ban in the international trade of bluefin tuna instead of imposing conditions and delays,” said Raül Romeva, a European Green MEP.

France says the delay is needed to conduct scientific testing to confirm whether bluefin tuna stocks are at dangerously low levels, but green groups say the measure does not conform to CITES practices and is actually meant to appease local fishing communities with elections on the horizon.

“The best available data of barely four months ago already demonstrates as clear as day that stock levels are under 15 per cent of historical levels,” said Sergi Tudela, head of the WWF Mediterranean’s fisheries programme, referring to analyses published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and ICCAT itself.

In order for the 27 EU member states to come together as a unified voting bloc in Doha, they will first have to meet at a European Council meeting between representatives of all member state governments. Some observers say this could happen as late as 15 March - after the opening COP 15.

US support a “turning point”

The US had offered preliminary support for bringing bluefin tuna to CITES based on their assessment of ICCAT’s adoption of adequate control measures. But despite reeling in catch quotas from 22,000 tonnes in 2009 to 13,500 tonnes for 2010 and decreasing the purse seiner fishing season by one month (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 27 November 2009, http://ictsd.org/i/news/biores/62325/), the US has concluded that more needs to be done.

“We recognize that the parties to ICCAT took some unprecedented steps,” Strickland said in a news release. “However, in light of the serious compliance problems that have plagued the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean fishery and the fact that the 2010 quota level adopted by ICCAT is not as low as we believe is needed, the United States continues to have serious concerns about the long-term viability of either the fish or the fishery.”

The move by the Obama administration has drawn sharp criticism from fisheries supporters in the US who say that they are being forced to pay for the illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IIU) fishing practices of other countries.

“Even though our fishermen have operated under the strongest conservation measures in the world, if this CITES listing is approved they will have to pay the price for all the other bad actors’ failure to control harvest levels,” said Olympia Snowe Senator, a Republican senator from Maine, a state with a large fishing industry. “I fail to see the logic in supporting a policy that will penalise our fishermen for their contributions to the long-term sustainability of this critical species.”

Several observers have called Washington’s support for the ban a “turning point” on the road to Doha. However, their vote alone at COP 15 will not be enough to see the proposal adopted.

To be accepted, a proposal requires the backing of two thirds of the 175 CITES member countries.  Some observers have speculated that Japan could try to muster support from smaller countries in exchange for generous foreign aid packages. But supporters say the momentum seen so far should help bring more countries on board.

“If the biggest Atlantic bluefin tuna fishing nation in the world, France, and the EU - whose fishing industry has the highest stakes in this fishery, holding more than 50 per cent of total catch quota - can decide to support a CITES Appendix I listing for the sake of preserving the fishery and the tuna, Europe should be able to convince the rest of the international community to follow,” Tudela said.

Given Tokyo’s signal that it may register a reservation on the ban - which in practical terms means it could engage in trade with any other nation that also files a reservation - some countries may be enticed to become one of the few suppliers of bluefin tuna to the world’s biggest market. But while some North African Mediterranean countries, such as Libya, have been known to flout international consensus on fisheries rules, experts say most will follow Europe’s lead.

In addition to supporting bluefin tuna being added to Appendix I, Washington is also pushing Appendix II listings for six shark species and red and pink coral. Such a designation closely monitors and regulates international trade of a species but does not impose a ban.

More information

The EC press release can be accessed here: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/172&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The press release from the US Department of the Interior can be accessed here: http://ictsd.org/downloads/biores/p-r-tuna.pdf

ICTSD Reporting. “U.S. Backs Proposed Trading Ban on Bluefin Tuna,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, 3 March 2010; “U.S. backs international trade ban on Atlantic bluefin tuna,” THE WASHINGTON POST, 4 March 2010; “A Move to Save the Bluefin Tuna,” TIME, 4 March 2010.

“A coherent and effective international environmental governance architecture can provide a foundation for human well-being for generations to come,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told those attending the meeting. “I urge you to be bold and creative in putting forward new ideas.”

More than one thousand participants descended on the tiny Indonesian island for the five-day gathering, which also comprised the ‘simultaneous extraordinary’ conferences of the parties of the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions, which govern hazardous waste, industrial chemicals, and persistent organic pollutants, respectively.

But the main action on global environmental governance took place during the General Council meeting of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), as well as in the concurrent gathering of environment ministers from around the world.

High on the ministers’ agenda was the question of how to streamline international action on the environment. The current system of addressing environmental problems at the multilateral level “has become complex and fragmented,” the ministers acknowledged in their final declaration, adding that the system is “sometimes not as effective and efficient as it should be.”

“The status quo … is no longer an option,” UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner told Reuters. “Within the broader reform options, the [World Environment Organisation] concept is one of them.”

“Governments established a high-level ministerial group to continue this process with greater focus and also urgency. That group will convene within a few months,” Steiner added.

High-level group to mull structure of potential WEO

How such an institution might be structured has not been determined, although Steiner has suggested that it could be modelled on the WTO. It is not yet clear, however, whether a World Environment Organisation would have the power to sanction its members or, like the WTO, allow its members to sanction each other under certain circumstances.

Such questions will soon be broached by a ‘consultative group’ of ministers or high-level representatives, which will present a final report of its deliberations to UNEP’s next General Council, to be held in February 2011. Outcomes of their discussions will also be forwarded to the UN General Assembly, the multilateral body’s full membership.

Looking further ahead, officials have set their sights on securing a breakthrough at a major environmental summit to be held in Rio de Janeiro in 2012. The meeting, which is being called Rio +20, is to take place two decades after the 1992 summit in the Brazilian metropolis that is widely credited for generating much of the momentum for the modern environmental movement.

The ministers’ declaration, dubbed the Nusa Dua Declaration after the coastal resort town where the meeting was held, also touched on climate change, biodiversity and ecosystems, sustainable development and the green economy.

Reform: a long time coming

Many officials and academics have long argued that UNEP, which now serves as the core of the global environmental governance system, is too weak to adequately address the world’s myriad environmental problems.  The organisation, which was founded in 1972, was set up as a UN programme, not a department - a classification that would have afforded it broader influence and increased access to funding. As a programme, however, the institution was intended to establish environmental norms and serve as a catalyst for action on the environment; it was not intended to carry out projects on the ground.

Recently, however, the 38-year-old organisation has come under increased fire for not being up to the task of managing governments’ responses to everything from climate change and biodiversity loss to drinking water pollution and hazardous waste management. In a typical jibe, Peter Hass, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, called UNEP “weak, underfunded, overloaded, and remote” in an article in the Journal of European Public Policy in 2004.

With the need for reform taken as a given, the environmental academic community has long been embroiled in a debate over what form a World Environment Organisation might take. Proposed options range from a more robust version of UNEP to a WTO-style body that would have broad rule-making authority and the power to adjudicate disputes among nations.

But not everyone agrees that a new multilateral institution is the best way to improve international governance on environmental matters. Adil Najam, a professor of Global Public Policy at Boston University, wrote in 2002 that the environmental community is misdirecting its energies in debating possible structures for a new supra-national organisation.

“All such schemes share a strong supposition that the ‘problem’ of global environmental governance can be reduced to, and resolved by, playing around with the design of global environmental organisations,” Najam wrote, adding that such a discourse “fails to ask fundamental questions about why environmental degradation happens, or why global cooperation founders.”

More information

The ministers’ Nusa Dua Declaration can be accessed here: http://bit.ly/cyTIPn

A detailed report of the Bali meeting provided by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin is available here: http://www.iisd.ca/vol16/enb1684e.html

ICTSD reporting; “UN meeting moots WTO-style environment agency,” REUTERS, 26 February 2010.

For years, several green groups have been campaigning against the palm industry, which they say destroys wildlife habitat, causes widespread forest loss and releases huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, primarily in Southeast Asia. Some 80 percent of the world’s palm oil supply originates in Indonesia and Malaysia.

In an attempt to address global concern over the crop, a coalition of industry groups - including Unilever - and the environmental NGO WWF set up the RSPO in 2004 to promote “the growth and use of sustainable oil palm products through credible global standards and engagement of stakeholders.”

Revelations undermine sustainable certification

But critics say the recent discovery of unsustainable practices by certified “sustainable” companies calls the viability of the RSPO into question. Industry watchers suggest the revelations could drive a wedge of mistrust between purchasers and growers, making it increasingly difficult to justify the premium price of RSPO certified oil.

Unilever is the world’s largest purchaser of palm oil and has much at stake in ensuring RSPO certification remains credible. In an attempt to combat the negative image cast onto one of their key ingredients, the conglomerate has pledged to purchase all of its 1.3 million annual tonnes of palm oil from certified sustainable plantations by 2015.

The oil is found in a variety of foods, including margarine, cooking oil, potato chips, and cakes. It is also an ingredient in many cosmetics, soaps, shampoos, and detergents. Recently, palm oil has also begun to be used as a biofuel.

Unilever has reacted quickly when presented with evidence of unsustainable practices by its producers in the past. Three months ago, when Greenpeace alerted the company to illegal logging practices by PT SMART, the largest palm oil producer in Indonesia, it quickly suspended their US$33 million supply contract.

As a founding member of the RSPO and one of only a handful of companies committed to purchasing segregated sustainable palm Unilever has a vested interest in ensuring the certification system remains sound.

According to the RSPO, more than 28 million tonnes of palm oil are produced around the world each year - almost one third of the world’s vegetable oil production - and Indonesia is the world’s largest producer. But only three percent of world’s palm oil production is RSPO certified.

Sustainability standards “unenforceable”

Indonesian government representatives said they are aware of the footage in the BBC documentary and that the government is clamping down on illegal logging. Similarly, following their suspension, PT SMART admitted to “minor mistakes” and introduced stricter environmental controls. However, it is the enforcement of regulations, rather than establishing policy that has proven to be difficult.

Shailendra Yashwant, Greenpeace director for Southeast Asia told the BBC that RSPO certification is a “greenwash” because those commitments promised by producers are unenforceable on the ground.

Yashwant suggests that a more effective measure to help preserve Indonesian rainforests would be strong action by Jakarta on deforestation. “We want the Indonesian government to immediately announce a moratorium on further deforestation…beginning with peat lands,” he said.

With a cultivation area of 63,886 hectares, Duta Palma is a significant player in the palm industry. Duta Palma’s operation is managed by seven smaller companies: PT Eluan Mahkota, PT Johan Sentosa, PT Wana Jingga Timur, PT Cerenti Subur, PT Mekar Sari Alam Lestari, PT Aditya Palma Nusantara, and PT Duta Palma Nusantara.

According to RSPO, areas undergoing palm oil cultivation have grown by about 43 percent over the past two decades. Most of this new growth has occurred in Malaysia and Indonesia.

More information

Those located in the UK can access the documentary “Dying For a Biscuit” on the BBC’s website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r4t3s

ICTSD Reporting; “Unilever drops major palm-oil producer,” THE INDEPENDENT, 22 February 2010; “Unilever stops buying palm oil from Indonesian planter,” REUTERS, 24 February 2010; “Setelah Kasus Sinar Mas, Unilever Blacklist CPO Duta Palma,” DETIK FINANCE, 25 February 2010; “Orangutan survival and the shopping trolley,” BBC, 22 February 2010.

“Cap-and-trade is dead,” Senator Lindsey Graham told a group of environmental leaders in a private -meeting last week, the Washington Post reported Saturday.

Coming as it did from Graham, the South Carolina Republican who has been working across party lines with two colleagues to put together a Senate climate bill, the comment prompted speculation that Congress would abandon requirements for major emitters to buy and sell emissions allowances.

While analysts parse the senator’s words - some suggest that he is in fact not opposed to placing a price on carbon - it is clear that the agonies over cap-and-trade are occurring against the backdrop of declining support among US voters for taking strong action against climate change.

Researchers at Yale and George Mason universities reported in January that only 50 percent of Americans now say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” about global warming, a 13-point decrease since fall 2008. Doubts about the scientific basis of climate change have also deepened: the percentages who think that global warming is mostly attributable to human activities, or even happening at all, have dropped by more than 10 percent over the same period. Surveys by the Pew Research Center have consistently placed climate change at the bottom of a list of Americans’ twenty top priorities for their government, although energy policy ranked significantly higher.

A cap-and-trade approach to curbing the emissions responsible for climate change was at the centre of an energy bill narrowly passed by the House of Representatives in June 2009 (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 26 June 2009, http://ictsd.org/i/news/biores/49571/). The legislation that Graham has been working on with Senators John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, aims to win the support that a previous Senate bill failed to garner last fall. The provisions of that earlier Senate bill were broadly similar to the House-passed ‘Waxman-Markey’ legislation.

Critics of a cap-and-trade system have dubbed it ‘cap-and-tax’, making its supporters in Congress wary of putting it to recession-weary, tax-averse US voters ahead of Congressional elections in November.

More details about the Graham-Kerry-Lieberman bill are expected to be released in the coming weeks. News reports suggest that the bill may include a more limited cap-and-trade system, one that applies to electricity utilities, and possibly to manufacturers in the future.

A report on the New York Times website suggests that oil refiners might face a ‘carbon fee’ instead of being folded into a broader cap-and-trade system.

An alternative approach, called ‘cap and dividend’, would place a cap on emissions, and return revenues to consumers in the form of cheques that they could put towards higher energy costs.

Public scepticism about the science underlying climate change has increased in recent months, following the high-profile leaks of emails among climate scientists at the University of East Anglia in the UK, and the acknowledgement by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a handful of findings in its voluminous reports were inaccurate.

ICTSD Reporting; “Senators to propose abandoning cap-and-trade,” THE WASHINGTON POST, 27 February 2010; “Public’s Priorities for 2010: Economy, Jobs, Terrorism: Energy Concerns Fall, Deficit Concerns Rise,” PEW RESEARCH CENTER, 25 January 2010; “US climate change bill options for senators,” REUTERS, 1 March 2010; “Senate Trio Hopes to Hit Pay Dirt With Carbon ‘Fee’ on Fuels,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, 3 March 2010.

“The decision to intensify the negotiating schedule underlines the commitment by governments to move the negotiations forward towards success in Cancun,” de Boer said, referring to the end-of-year meeting at which countries will try again to hammer out a legally binding deal to reduce global emissions of climate-warming gases.

The newly announced April gathering is in addition to the annual June meetings of the convention’s subsidiary bodies, which are responsible for technical, scientific and implementation-related negotiations under the climate convention. Before Tuesday’s announcement, the subsidiary body meetings, which will also be held in Bonn, had been the only opportunity for formal negotiations before ministers gather in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December.

The announcement of the April meeting validates calls from the many developing countries that have stressed that the climate negotiations must continue on two fronts - in discussions for a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, as well as discussions under the Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action to carry forward the so-called ‘Bali Action Plan’, a roadmap set out by ministers at the Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen in December 2008 that is geared towards developing a new global deal to address climate change.

Negotiations have been underway for nearly three years on the details of a second phase for the Kyoto Protocol, but many rich countries want to abandon the 12-year-old deal and negotiate a new agreement. Meanwhile, developing countries have refused to let go of the Protocol, even as they admit that it is an insufficient tool for addressing climate change. From their perspective, it is their only guarantee of binding emissions cuts from the developed world.

The meetings announced for April and June will continue the negotiations on both tracks.

ICTSD reporting.

Food security quickly emerged as a central issue at the meeting. Recent volatility in food prices, including major spikes in 2007 and 2008, have triggered riots in some poorer nations and panic-buying in wealthy states. Since the mid-1990s, the number of malnourished people in the world has increased to over one billion, or 15 percent of the world’s inhabitants, highlighting some of the key challenges of this century as the global population continues to rise.

Also discussed at length were the impacts of climate change on food supply and the ways in which the nations most adversely affected are also those with the smallest ability to cope. Agriculture, while a contributor to climate change, also has an important role to play in the reduction of greenhouse gases through practices such as soil carbon sequestration.

Ministers addressed the need for an integrated approach to enhance food security, including poverty alleviation and economic development, as well as efforts to ensure adequate supply of safe and nutritious food. They recognised the important role of trade in reliably ensuring that food can move from places it can be adequately produced to locations where it is not. For this reason, they emphasised the important role of concluding the Doha Development Agenda - the WTO’s eight-year-old global trade talks - in a comprehensive manner.

One major area of disagreement occurred over the issue of rural projects, which the EU believes are central to an integrated, multi-functional approach to agriculture.  Some states, like Austria, whose agriculture minister Nikolaus Berlakovich co-chaired the meeting, called for enhanced government regulation. But New Zealand’s farm minister, David Carter, the other co-chair, advocated against government regulations and in favour of greater volumes of trade on liberalised markets.

Ministers reached the conclusion that future cooperation with countries outside of the OECD will be crucial in order to deal with the issues discussed. They noted the need for more dialogue with emerging economies, as well as collaboration with institutions and agencies like the G20, the WTO, and the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization.

While last week’s meetings did not produce specific measures or policies to address the issues discussed, members agreed on the importance of monitoring progress in the decade ahead. The member states expect to reconvene at the OECD next no later than the middle of the decade to analyse results.

More information

The ministers’ communiqué from the meeting is available here: http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_2649_34487_44664898_1_1_1_1,00.html

The chairs’ summary of the meeting is available here: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/37/44693449.pdf

ICTSD reporting; “OECD farmers look at volatility, innovation,” MONEY CONTROL.COM, 27 February 2010; “Communiqué from the Ministers - Meeting of the Committee for Agriculture at Ministerial Level,” OECD, 26 February 2010; “Summary of the Chairs - Meeting of the Committee for Agriculture at Ministerial Level,” 25-26 February 2010.

“Fisheries management must abandon the traditional ‘top-down approach’, instead emphasising regionalisation, subsidiarity and stakeholder involvement, to reflect the local particularities of Europe’s seas and fleets,” the Members of European Parliament (MEPs) said in a statement.

The MEPs are asking that the new CFP also include a new management model that includes national quotas for member states in addition to the existing system of total allowable catches (TACs) to help eliminate the discarding of unwanted by-catch.

Environmentalists and the fisheries industry have long argued that the current rules are ineffective and wasteful. Because rules governing quotas are based on quantities at the point of landing, less profitable fish and fish caught over-quota are often dumped back into the sea - even if they are dead.

The report also urges policymakers to consider updating the criteria used to establish historical fishing rights, to create incentives for a establishing a robust environmentally sustainable aquaculture sector, and to introduce an eco-labelling programme aimed at boosting the image of fish products and promoting healthy food.

Since its creation in 1983, the CFP has been reviewed every 10 years (for information on the 2002 CFP reform see Bridges Trade BioRes, 23 January 2003, http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/8750/). The next review is scheduled for 2012 and it is expected that the entire policy will be overhauled. The move comes as alarming data suggests that 90 percent of EU fish stocks are being unsustainably exploited and that a third of those stocks may never recover.

The report was approved by an overwhelming margin (456 votes in favour, 50 against, and 65 abstentions). However, some MEPs expressed reservations over the possibility of losing access to historical fishing rights and a lack of emphasis on sustainable fishing.

While the MEP’s views will be only a contributing factor into the reform White Paper, under the Lisbon Treaty - which entered into force in December 2009 - Parliamentarians now have equal say with national government on fisheries policy.

In May 2009, EU fisheries ministers also recommended that the CFP be radically overhauled and decentralised (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 29 May 2009, http://ictsd.org/i/news/biores/47636/).

ICTSD Reporting; “MEPs vote to end Brussels meddling with fisheries,” TIMES ONLINE, 26 February 2010.

Coming up in the next two weeks (5-19 March)

9 March, Washington, US. REPORT LAUNCH: STATE OF THE BIODIVERSITY MARKETS: OFFSET AND COMPENSATION PROGRAMS WORLDWIDE. Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace will host a release of its recent report tracking its initiative to track conservation banks and biodiversity offset and compensation programs around the world. The report documents 39 existing compensatory mitigation programs and another 25 programs currently under development, each with numerous individual offset sites. The report found that the global annual biodiversity market size is at least US$1.9 to US$2.8 billion and likely more. For more information and to RSVP, visit: http://www.katoombagroup.org/signups/sbmr/ or contact Nathaniel Carroll: tel.: +1 202 446 1981; email: ncarroll@ecosystemmarketplace.com.

13-25 March, Doha, Qatar. FIFTEENTH MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (CITES COP 15). This meeting is organised by the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES is an international agreement between governments, with the stated purpose of ensuring that the international trade in specimens of wild plants and animals does not threaten their survival. For more information visit http://www.cites.org/eng/news/meetings/cop15/index.shtml.

15-17 March, Amsterdam, Netherlands. WORLD BIOFUELS MARKETS. Over 230 leaders of the biofuels industry will share their expertise on all aspects of the biofuels value chain during three days of interactive conference sessions. In addition, time will be provided for networking. Sessions will be held on: Biofuels and Developing Countries; Biofuels Standards; Biofuels, Downstream and Trading; and Biofuels Adoption, among other topics. Keynote speakers will include Gro Harlem Bruntland, former Prime Minister of Norway and UN Special Envoy for Climate Change; Philip New, CEO of BP Biofuels; and Nobua Tanuko, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency. For more information, please see http://www.worldbiofuelsmarkets.com/index.html.

16-17 March, Seoul, Republic of Korea. INTERNATIONAL EXPERT GROUP MEETING: UN FORUM ON CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION, FUEL EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT.  This meeting will seek to contribute to global efforts to enhance sustainable development of the transport sector and to help curb the global growth of greenhouse gases and other emissions emanating from motor vehicles, in particular in rapidly growing urban areas. It will serve as an intersessional meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). For more information contact: Division for Sustainable Development; tel:                +1 212 963 9883         +1 212 963 9883 ; e-mail: UN_Urban_Transport_Forum_Seoul@un.org; internet: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/susdevtopics/sdt_tran_egm0310.shtml

Other Upcoming Events:

23 March, Geneva, Switzerland. WORKSHOP ON EMERGING TRADE MEASURES IN TIMBER MARKETS. This one-day multi-stakeholder workshop, co-organised by the UN Economic Commission for Europe
and the Economic Research and Statistics Division of the WTO Secretariat, will be dedicated to issues surrounding tariff and non-tariff trade barriers and emerging trade regulations on timber. Led by expert presentations, workshop participants will discuss the economic impacts of trade and trade-related measures on timber markets, taking into account the role of trade in timber markets and the link between trade liberalisation and key challenges facing the forest-based sector. For further information, visit http://timber.unece.org/index.php?id=270 or contact Cédric Pène: tel: +41-22-917 1286; fax +41-22-917 0041; email: cedric.pene@unece.org.

24 March, Berkshire, UK. SUSTAINABILITY: WHERE ARE WE GOING? STRATEGIC PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABILITY IN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SECTOR. This specialist conference is targeted at directors and senior managers of sustainability and environment-related public engagement organisations. The day will allow participants to take a wider strategic view of climate change, environment and sustainability issues as well as question how organisational visions and operations fit with these priorities. Featuring leading thinkers and champions in the field will include Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable MP, Zero Carbon Britain/Centre for Alternative Technology, International Institute for Environment and Development, Global Footprint Network, Botanic Gardens Conservation International and the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. For further information, visit http://www.livingrainforest.org/explore/conferences2010/.

19-22 April, Cochabamba, Bolivia. WORLD PEOPLE’S CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE RIGHTS OF MOTHER EARTH. This conference, called by Bolivian President Evo Morales, invites scientists, academics, lawyers and governments that want to work with their citizens to attend. Its objectives are to analyse structural and systemic causes of climate change, to discuss and agree on a project towards a Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights, to agree on proposals for new commitments to the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC projects and to analyse and develop an action plan to advance the establishment of a Climate Justice Tribunal, among other topics. For more information or to register, visit http://pwccc.wordpress.com/.

10-11 May, Geneva, Switzerland. RESPONDING TO GLOBAL CRISES: NEW DEVELOPMENT PATHS. The UN Conference on Trade and Development is hosting its second Public Symposium to deepen insights from the recent crises and to explore new development paths. Key topics of the symposium will be “Rethinking global economic governance: towards trade and financial reforms for enhancing development” and “Sustainable development strategies.” The symposium will include a round table of eminent persons on the main themes, moderated plenaries and focused group discussions to debate key aspects of new development paths. It is open to representatives of civil society, member states, international organisations, other UN agencies, parliamentarians, the private sector, academia and the media. Papers and/or inputs should reach the UNCTAD secretariat as soon as possible and no later than 20 April 2010. For more information, visit: http://www.unctad.info/en/Public-Symposium-2010/.

13-14 May, Nanjing, China. SECOND ADVANCED WIND TECHNOLOGY AND INVESTMENT SUMMIT 2010. At this summit, senior directors and technicians from China’s wind energy and wind turbine bases will discuss China’s newest industrial policies, advanced technology solutions for their plants, grid integration and updated progress reports on major projects in China. Topics to be addressed include development trends in the global wind power market, Chinese renewable energy policies and relevant regulations, investment and financing prospects in the Chinese wind power market and lessons from the European offshore wind market. For further information, visit http://www.noppen.com.cn/events/2nd_Wind/2nd_Wind.asp or contact Catriona Scanlong at catrionas@noppen.com.cn.

14-17 June, Sannäs, Finland. 4S SUMMER SYMPOSIUM ON SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS: HARMONISING POLICY, TECHONOLOGY, PRODUCT DESIGN AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.  This symposium at Aalto University aims to bring together motivated researchers and high level keynote speakers with an interest in interdisciplinary systemic approaches to complex issues under the theme of closed-loop sustainable material systems. It will be in the form of a workshop with one of the main goals being to establish an international and interdisciplinary network of researchers with sustainability as a research interest. Researchers working on their doctoral thesis or post-doctoral activities are encouraged to apply; selection of participants will be made by the scientific steering committee. For more information, please visit: http://4s.mekpros.fi./ or contact the organisers at maaria.wierink@tkk.fi.

CONFRONTING BIOPIRACY: CHALLENGES, CASES AND INTERNATIONAL DEBATES. By Daniel F. Robinson. February 2010. “Biopiracy” refers either to the unauthorised extraction of biological resources or to the patenting of spurious “inventions” based on such knowledge or resources without compensation. Biopiracy cases continue to emerge in the media and public eye, yet they remain the source of considerable disagreement, confusion, controversy and grief. The aim of this book is to provide the most detailed, coherent analysis of the issue of biopiracy to date. The book synthesises the rise of the issue and increasing use of the term by activists and negotiators in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to form a critical understanding of the themes, implications and politics of biopiracy. Using case-studies derived from interviews and fieldwork with researchers, government, industry, local farmers, healers and indigenous people, the author documents events that have occurred in biopiracy and bioprospecting controversies. Implications and ethical dilemmas are explored, particularly relating to work with local communities, and the power relations entailed. Options and solutions are suggested which are relevant for local communities, national governments, international negotiators, NGO and interest groups, researchers and industry. This publication can be accessed at: http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=101786.

TRADE AND DEFORESTATION: WHAT HAVE WE FOUND? By Juan Robalino and Luis Diego Herrara. World Trade Organization, February 2010. Forest plays a significant role in the overall balance of carbon in the atmosphere. Forest carbon sequestration can potentially reduce the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, when deforestation takes place, carbon is released to the atmosphere again. In light of increasing trade around the world, this paper attempts to address the questions: Will these trade trends have an effect on forest cover and deforestation? Which countries are more likely to be affected? What will the trade effects be on the welfare of resource abundant countries? Will trade have an effect on conservation efforts? The paper also makes several policy recommendations for trade policy and conservation policy in an “opening” world. This publication can be accessed at: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wtr10_robalino_herrera_e.htm.

CLIMATE CHANGE, TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.  By Krishna Ravi Srinivas. RIS Discussion Paper series, July 2009. Technology development and transfer has been identified as a key element in the Bali Action Plan. In the negotiations on a global climate treaty the developing nations have put forth ideas and plans to ensure that intellectual property rights (IPRs) do not become a barrier to transfer of climate friendly technology. In this discussion paper, the question of technology transfer and intellectual property rights is addressed in the context of climate change. The paper concludes that the challenge of climate change calls for out of the box thinking to find solutions that can make a difference. The IPR issues in technology transfer need to be tackled by a combination of policy measures, incentives and bringing in changes at the global intellectual property regime under TRIPS. This publication can be viewed at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1440742.

CAPPING CARBON. By David M. Driesen. Environmental Law, January 2010. This article discusses cap setting for a cap-and-trade program, a key problem in pending legislation addressing global climate disruption. While the literature often suggests that trading automatically solves the problems associated with Best Available Technology (BAT) regulation, regulators often use a BAT approach to setting caps for trading programs. This paper examines neglected normative and practical choices between BAT, cost-benefit, and effects-based cap setting in the trading context. It also shows that cap-setting exercises can get bogged down in the same sort of lengthy administrative and judicial processes that delayed and weakened BAT regulation and discusses ways of avoiding these problems in climate legislation. This article can be viewed at http://www.lclark.edu/law/law_reviews/environmental_law/.

LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR REDD: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. Edited by John Costenbader. International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2009. An effective mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD) could provide a powerful tool for mitigating global carbon dioxide levels as well as greatly enhancing developing country tropical forest conservation and sustainable development. Given that many tropical forest countries likely to host a majority of REDD projects also demonstrate the weakest forest governance records in recent decades, the design and implementation of legal and institutional frameworks relevant for REDD governance will require especially careful evaluation. Responding to this challenge, the IUCN Environmental Law Centre has completed a comprehensive study on national legal frameworks for REDD in conjunction with partner international and national REDD legal experts. The report includes case studies from Brazil, Cameroon, Guyana, and Papua New Guinea, which serve as a basis for further analysis and recommendations for the development of laws and regulations for REDD. The publication is available for download at http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/eplp_77.pdf.

BCAs are unilateral measures that a state imposes when a good is imported from an industry or firm in a country that has not ‘comparably offset’ the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the good’s production. The BCA could be a flat tariff, a tax, or a requirement for the importer to purchase carbon credits that would compensate the country with more stringent regulations for the loss of competitiveness that it incurs because of its emissions standards.

While there is currently no legislation in place that would impose a tax or tariff on exports from countries with more lax environmental standards, the idea has been floated by the EU and the US, among others, as a means to prevent ‘carbon leakage’ - the movement of industry abroad to avoid complying with environmental standards in a given country.

New issues need further debate: Khullar

Speaking at the release of a new information package on the issue on 18 February in New Delhi, Khullar said that the imposition of BCAs was inevitable. “It is not possible to pretend any longer that this is not going to happen,” he told reporters.

The secretary said he believes that BCAs will be a reality in two to three years’ time, and that the new publication by the Centre for WTO Studies - a research body under the Indian Ministry of Commerce - is intended to stimulate “intellectual debates” on whether the proposed environmental laws would be WTO compatible.

Khullar stressed that India is opposed to the inclusion of environmental issues in trade liberalisation negotiations, adding that the WTO is not the proper venue for such talks. “There are other forums for framing global environmental laws,” he said.

Certain environmental issues have long been discussed at the WTO. Some, such as the liberalisation of trade in environmental goods and services, have even been the subject of formal negations at the body’s committee on trade and environment (see related article, this issue). However, Khullar says there are new issues emerging - such as BCAs - that are not being subject to proper international debate.

Despite Khullar’s objections to the mixture of trade and environment, recently the two issues have been regularly colliding. In fact, Brussels has suggested that environmental issues be included in the ongoing bilateral trade talks between the EU and India and trade issues such as BCAs featured prominently at last December’s UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.

While developed economies - including the US and EU - are now contemplating how or whether these measures should be implemented, developing countries - especially India and China - say they are concerned that the measures could be used primarily to protect local markets, particularly given the continued slump in the global economy.

Report is a “starting point” for discussions

Khullar called the Centre for WTO Studies’ publication a “starting point” for discussion on the issue. The secretary said because the WTO has been unclear on how it stands on the issue thus far, India should be prepared once the need arises.

The report, entitled “Frequently Asked Questions: WTO Compatibility of Border Trade Measures for Environmental Protection,” outlines key issues regarding the WTO compatibility of BCAs and suggests the possible effects such measures would have on India and global trade relations in general.

The report outlines the various forms under which environmental taxes can be levied and the various ways in which they could be challenged at the WTO. It concludes that if proposed BCA measures fail to address the specific development conditions in developing countries and efforts made towards adopting nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), the taxes are likely to be considered “arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination.”

While India refrained from making any binding commitments at Copenhagen, it agreed to voluntarily bring down its carbon intensity - carbon dioxide emissions compared to each unit of economic output - by 20-25 percent by 2020.

Publication warns of “impending trade war”

The report suggests that several Indian products - including iron, steel, aluminium, pulp and paper products, cement, glass and chemicals - would immediately suffer if BCAs were implemented. It goes on to say that India and other developing countries will undoubtedly challenge the true impetus behind the measures.

“Such measures imposing restrictions on imports on the grounds of providing a ‘level playing field’, or maintaining the ‘competitiveness’ of the domestic industry, etc are likely to be viewed as mere protectionist measures by the developed world to block the exports of the poorer nations,” the report reads. “This is because, there is little empirical evidence that companies relocate to take advantage of lax pollution controls.”

The information package argues that such unilateral trade measures will inevitably lead to tit-for-tat trade restrictions that could spiral out of control. “This will spark trade war and will lead to massive, justified, WTO-legal retaliation by the affected countries,” the report reads. Such projections have also been raised by China and several think tanks following the issue.

Speaking at the official release, Khullar was careful to clarify that the report did not represent official government policy, but was rather meant to act as a “pre-emptive strike” against mixing trade and non-trade issues at the WTO. “The idea is to make everybody understand what the issues are in simple terms and generate a debate,” he said.

Khullar said that if BCAs were to be discussed at the WTO, he did not believe they would be included in the protracted Doha Round of negotiations.

More information

The Centre for WTO Studies report can be accessed here: http://wtocentre.iift.ac.in/FAQ/english/Environment_FAQ.pdf

ICTSD Reporting; “Clubbing environment with trade wrong,” REDIFF BUSINESS, 18 February 2010; “India gets ready to confront EU on ‘impending’ carbon tax,” THE ECONOMIC TIMES, 19 February 2010.